GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are emphatically one-sided. The NVIDIA PG506-232 scores 225,124 points, while the GeForce RTX 3090 Ti scores 174,441 points. That is a 29.1% advantage for the PG506-232, a massive gap in raw compute throughput as measured by this cross-platform API benchmark. The delta is large enough that it is not a rounding error or a driver quirk; the PG506-232 simply extracts substantially more OpenCL performance from its hardware configuration.

Context from the nearest-rival data reinforces how strong that PG506-232 number is. It sits in the 99th percentile of all GPUs, which places it above the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB (207,124 points, 8.7% lower), above the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D (219,827 points, 2.4% lower), and above the NVIDIA RTX 6000D (195,964 points, 14.9% lower). The only nearby part that beats it is the NVIDIA L20 (251,147 points, 10.4% higher). So the PG506-232 is not merely ahead of the 3090 Ti in this test, it is ahead of several dedicated workstation and datacenter accelerators that cost far more and are purpose-built for compute.

The RTX 3090 Ti’s OpenCL result of 174,441 is not embarrassing in absolute terms, but it is clearly a step below. Its 95th percentile ranking is still very high, and its nearest rivals are a mixed bag: the NVIDIA L4 (131,072, 0.7% lower), the RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218, 2.4% higher), the NVIDIA A10M (135,230, 2.4% higher), and the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (135,396, 2.6% higher). The 3090 Ti beats all of those by a small margin, but the gap between it and the PG506-232 is far larger than the gaps between the 3090 Ti and its own rivals.

The head-to-head table shows one win for the PG506-232 and zero for the RTX 3090 Ti. That is a decisive sweep, but it comes with a caveat: the RTX 3090 Ti has additional benchmark records for 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (5,741) and Geekbench Vulkan (215,633), while the PG506-232 has no corresponding entries. The PG506-232 wins the only shared test, but the 3090 Ti has strengths in APIs that the PG506-232 does not even expose in the data. For compute workloads that rely on OpenCL, the PG506-232 is the clear choice. For graphics-oriented tasks using Vulkan or DX12, the 3090 Ti has documented scores, and the PG506-232 has none, an absence of data, not a performance claim.

Where Each One Wins

The PG506-232 wins in raw OpenCL compute. Its 225,124 score is 29.1% higher than the 3090 Ti’s 174,441, and its 99th-percentile ranking places it among the top tier of all GPUs. This makes it the stronger option for general-purpose compute workloads that leverage OpenCL, think scientific simulation, data analysis, and any number-crunching task that can offload to the GPU. The architecture supports this: the PG506-232 is built on TSMC’s 7 nm node with 54,200 million transistors on an 826 mm² die, and it pairs 3,584 shading units with 224 tensor cores. It also has 24 GB of HBM2 memory on a 3072-bit bus, delivering 933.1 GB/s of bandwidth. That memory subsystem is typical of datacenter parts, favoring sustained throughput over burst performance.

The RTX 3090 Ti wins in everything else that has data, but only because the data does not include the PG506-232 in those tests. The 3090 Ti has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5,741 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 215,633. It also has 84 RT cores and 336 tensor cores, along with 10,752 shading units, roughly triple the shading units of the PG506-232. Its 40.00 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 performance are far above the PG506-232’s 10.32 TFLOPS. Its memory is GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus with 1.01 TB/s bandwidth, slightly higher than the PG506-232’s 933.1 GB/s. The 3090 Ti also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the PG506-232 lists no API support at all. For gaming, ray tracing, or any DirectX/Vulkan workload, the 3090 Ti is the only one of the two with documented capability.

The use-case split is simple. If the workload is compute-bound and can use OpenCL, the PG506-232 is measurably faster. If the workload involves graphics rendering, ray tracing, or modern game APIs, the RTX 3090 Ti is the only part with evidence in the data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA PG506-232 scores 225,124 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 29.1% higher than the RTX 3090 Ti’s 174,441.

Q: Does the RTX 3090 Ti have any benchmark wins over the PG506-232?

A: In the head-to-head data, the PG506-232 wins the only shared test (Geekbench OpenCL) with 1 win to 0. The RTX 3090 Ti has additional scores in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (5,741) and Geekbench Vulkan (215,633), but the PG506-232 has no comparable results in those tests.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 3090 Ti has 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth from 24 GB of GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus. The PG506-232 has 933.1 GB/s from 24 GB of HBM2 on a 3072-bit bus. The 3090 Ti is about 8% higher in bandwidth.

Q: What are the FP32 compute figures for each card?

A: The PG506-232 delivers 10.32 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The RTX 3090 Ti delivers 40.00 TFLOPS. The 3090 Ti is about 3.9 times higher in FP32 throughput.

Q: Which card has more shading units and tensor cores?

A: The RTX 3090 Ti has 10,752 shading units and 336 tensor cores. The PG506-232 has 3,584 shading units and 224 tensor cores. The 3090 Ti has 3 times the shading units and 1.5 times the tensor cores.

Q: Does the PG506-232 support DirectX or Vulkan?

A: No API support is listed for the PG506-232, no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan versions are specified. The RTX 3090 Ti supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification except memory capacity, bus interface, and manufacturer. Both have 24 GB of memory, both use PCIe 4.0 x16, and both are NVIDIA products built on the Ampere architecture. Everything else diverges.

The PG506-232 uses the GA100 chip, while the RTX 3090 Ti uses the GA102. The process node differs: the PG506-232 is on TSMC’s 7 nm process, while the 3090 Ti is on Samsung’s 8 nm process. Transistor counts are far apart, the PG506-232 has 54,200 million transistors on an 826 mm² die, versus the 3090 Ti’s 28,300 million on 628 mm². Transistor density is 65.6M per mm² for the PG506-232 and 45.1M per mm² for the 3090 Ti.

Clock speeds favor the 3090 Ti. Its base clock is 1560 MHz and boost is 1860 MHz, versus the PG506-232’s 930 MHz base and 1440 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the PG506-232 runs at 1215 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective), while the 3090 Ti runs at 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective). Memory type is HBM2 for the PG506-232 and GDDR6X for the 3090 Ti, with bus widths of 3072-bit and 384-bit, respectively.

Compute resources heavily favor the 3090 Ti. It has 10,752 shading units, 336 TMUs, 112 ROPs, 84 RT cores, and 336 tensor cores. The PG506-232 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, 96 ROPs, no RT cores, and 224 tensor cores. Pixel rate is 208.3 GPixel/s for the 3090 Ti versus 138.2 GPixel/s for the PG506-232. Texture rate is 625.0 GTexel/s versus 322.6 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 are both 40.00 TFLOPS for the 3090 Ti, versus 10.32 TFLOPS for the PG506-232.

Power and physical specs differ substantially. The PG506-232 has a 165 W TDP, is dual-slot, uses an 8-pin EPS connector, and requires a 450 W PSU. The 3090 Ti has a 450 W TDP, is triple-slot, uses a 1x 16-pin connector, and requires an 850 W PSU. The PG506-232 is 267 mm long and 112 mm tall; the 3090 Ti is 336 mm long, 140 mm tall, and 61 mm wide. The PG506-232 has no display outputs, while the 3090 Ti has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Release timing also differs. The PG506-232 launched on 2021-04-11; the 3090 Ti launched on 2022-01-26. Both are end-of-life.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture, but they are built on different chips with different design goals. The PG506-232 uses the GA100 die, which is the datacenter-oriented implementation of Ampere. The RTX 3090 Ti uses the GA102 die, which is the consumer/high-end desktop implementation.

The manufacturing process is a significant split. The PG506-232 is fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm node, while the 3090 Ti is fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm node. This gives the PG506-232 a higher transistor density, 65.6M per mm² versus 45.1M per mm², and allows it to pack 54,200 million transistors onto its 826 mm² die. The 3090 Ti’s 28,300 million transistors on 628 mm² is a denser-feeling design in terms of raw count but less so per area.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The PG506-232 uses HBM2 with a 3072-bit bus, which is typical of compute accelerators that need high bandwidth in a compact footprint. The 3090 Ti uses GDDR6X with a 384-bit bus, which is standard for consumer graphics cards that prioritize cost and availability. Despite the different technologies, the bandwidth figures are close: 933.1 GB/s for the PG506-232 and 1.01 TB/s for the 3090 Ti.

Feature sets reveal their intended roles. The PG506-232 has no RT cores, no display outputs, and no listed DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support. It is a pure compute engine. The 3090 Ti has 84 RT cores for ray tracing, full display outputs, and complete API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The PG506-232 does have 224 tensor cores, but the 3090 Ti outnumbers it with 336.

The FP32 and FP16 performance is a major architectural tell. The PG506-232 delivers 10.32 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio), which is a conservative configuration suited for datacenter workloads where power efficiency matters more than peak throughput. The 3090 Ti delivers 40.00 TFLOPS in both, a 3.9x higher figure that reflects its consumer-oriented design with much higher clock speeds and more shading units.

Power efficiency is where the PG506-232 shines. Its 165 W TDP is less than half the 3090 Ti’s 450 W, yet it still manages to win the OpenCL benchmark by 29.1%. The PG506-232 achieves 225,124 points at 165 W, while the 3090 Ti achieves 174,441 at 450 W. That is a stark difference in performance-per-watt, enabled by the TSMC 7 nm process and the HBM2 memory design.

The Verdict

The data points to two completely different tools for two completely different jobs. The NVIDIA PG506-232 is the winner in the only head-to-head benchmark available, and it wins by a wide margin, 29.1% in Geekbench OpenCL. It also does so while consuming 165 W versus the 3090 Ti’s 450 W, and while occupying a dual-slot form factor versus the 3090 Ti’s triple-slot. For anyone running OpenCL-based compute workloads, the PG506-232 is the obvious choice: higher score, lower power draw, smaller physical footprint, and a 99th-percentile ranking among all GPUs.

The RTX 3090 Ti is the winner for everything involving graphics. It has 10,752 shading units, 84 RT cores, 40.00 TFLOPS of FP32, and full support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. It has documented 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and Geekbench Vulkan scores, while the PG506-232 has no entries for those tests. It also has display outputs, which the PG506-232 lacks entirely. If the job involves rendering, ray tracing, or any consumer graphics API, the 3090 Ti is the only part with evidence of capability.

There is also a practical consideration in physical requirements. The PG506-232 needs a 450 W PSU and an 8-pin EPS connector; the 3090 Ti needs an 850 W PSU and a 16-pin connector. The PG506-232 is 267 mm long and 112 mm tall; the 3090 Ti is 336 mm long, 140 mm tall, and 61 mm wide. The PG506-232 will fit in far more chassis and server enclosures.

Choose the PG506-232 if the workload is compute-bound and OpenCL-compatible, and if power efficiency and a compact form factor matter. Choose the RTX 3090 Ti if the workload involves graphics, ray tracing, or modern game APIs, and if you have the power delivery and chassis space to accommodate a 450 W triple-slot card. The benchmark data is unambiguous: the PG506-232 is the compute king, and the 3090 Ti is the graphics card. Neither is a substitute for the other.